LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 08.09.2025
🔥📛 Delhi-HC restores petition seeking re-crediting mechanism for rejected refunds, aids Assessee in GST-Dept – GSTIN row
➡️ The assessee, an exporter of veterinary medicines, faced refund rejections after being flagged as a “Risky Exporter” by DGARM. It was offered two options: appeal against rejection or file an undertaking online for issuance of PMT-03 to re-credit the rejected refund.
➡️ Although willing to submit the undertaking, the assessee could not access the portal to upload PMT-03 and hence approached the Delhi HC for relief.
➡️ The writ was initially disposed of with directions to the assessee to approach the jurisdictional GST officer, and GSTN was instructed to assist with enabling the PMT-03 filing.
➡️ Later, the Department argued that Rules 86 and 89 of the CGST Rules were not applicable, hence Rule 68(4) was not triggered for PMT-03. It contended that refund adjudication could instead be undertaken by Uttarakhand GST authorities, without requiring PMT-03.
➡️ Observing that the assessee was stuck between GSTN and State GST authorities, the HC restored the writ petition, impleaded the State GST Commissioner (Uttarakhand), and directed notices to GSTN and the Uttarakhand Law Department. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 31, 2025.
✔️ Delhi HC – Ankur Agarwal v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Anr [W.P.(C) 5414/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Granting refund on account of business closure tantamount to rewriting statute, impermissible
➡️ SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. claimed refund of unutilised ITC (approx. ₹4.37 crore) under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act after closure of business in Sikkim; both the Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Authority had rejected the claim, but a Single Judge had ordered refund.
➡️ The Division Bench held that Section 49(6) is not an independent refund provision; refunds thereunder must strictly follow Section 54. Thus, refund of ITC is permissible only in the manner provided under Section 54.
➡️ Refund of unutilised ITC is restricted to two specific situations: (i) zero-rated supplies without payment of tax, and (ii) inverted duty structure. Closure of business is not a ground for refund.
➡️ The Court relied on VKC Footsteps (India) (P) Ltd., cautioning against judicial rewriting of Section 54(3). Earlier CENVAT-era judgments (Slovak India Trading, Jain Vanguard Polybutlene) were found inapplicable and already doubted in Gauri Plasticulture.
➡️ The Court noted that cancellation of registration requires reversal of ITC under Section 29(5), which the assessee neither pleaded nor proved. Consequently, the Single Judge’s order was quashed and Revenue’s appeal allowed.
✔️ Sikkim HC – Union of India vs SICPA India Private Limited [W.A. No. 02 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: No GST liability on JDA when Developer becomes property owner upon conveyance; Directs refund
➡️ The Court held that no GST was payable at the time of entering into the Joint Development Agreement (JDA). Liability arises only upon transfer of possession or rights in the completed property, as clarified by Notification No. 4/2018-Central Tax (Rate).
➡️ Although Revenue initially demanded GST at 12% on the date of JDA by invoking Section 13 of the CGST Act, it later admitted through an affidavit that liability triggers only upon conveyance of the property.
➡️ Since the landowner subsequently sold the entire land to the developer (assessee), and all JDA rights were extinguished by mutual agreement, no taxable supply under the JDA survived.
➡️ The Court accepted that adjudication proceedings had lapsed due to expiry of limitation under Sections 73–75, as no proper notice or order was issued within the statutory timelines.
➡️ Revenue was directed to refund Rs. 7 crores deposited under protest, along with 6% interest from the date of deposit, within six weeks.
✔️ Bombay HC – Provident Housing Ltd. vs Union of India & Others [Writ Petition No. 5 Of 2022]
🔥📛 HC: Grants relief to Kurlon, quashes order over SCN only uploaded on portal; Directs remand
➡️ The Court quashed the order demanding ₹31.58 lakh ITC, noting that show cause notice (SCN) reminders and the order were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices & Orders” tab, which deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to respond.
➡️ Revenue argued that portal modifications post-16.01.2024 made the relevant tab visible, but the Court held that this did not cure the defect in the earlier adjudication.
➡️ Relying on its earlier ruling in Neelgiri Machinery, the Court emphasized that adjudication must be preceded by proper service of SCN, opportunity to reply, and personal hearing.
➡️ Matter remanded with directions to:
—> Issue fresh hearing notice via e-mail/mobile,
—> Provide portal access within one week for filing reply and retrieving notices/documents,
—> Permit the assessee to submit a reply before fresh adjudication.
➡️ The Court clarified that the final determination will abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling in HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV and Delhi HC’s decision in Engineers India Ltd. on the validity of Extension Notifications No. 56/2023-Central Tax and 56/2023-State Tax.
✔️ Delhi HC – Kurlon Retail Limited v. Sales Tax Officer & Ors [W.P.(C) 13121/2025]
🔥📛 Assessee should be allowed to reply to SCN as it contained post-decisional hearing phrase: HC
➡️ The show cause notice (SCN) regarding revocation of GST registration was framed in a manner that assumed liability, stating that the application would be considered only after clearance of all dues.
➡️ Such wording reflected a post-decisional approach, as the authority had already predetermined the outcome before affording the taxpayer an opportunity to reply.
➡️ The petitioner contended that there were no outstanding dues and that the notice left nothing meaningful to contest, effectively denying a genuine opportunity of hearing.
➡️ The Court held that an SCN that simultaneously prescribes a condition (clearance of dues) and then invites a reply is legally unsustainable, as it prejudges the issue instead of seeking clarification.
➡️ The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, ensuring the taxpayer is granted a fair and proper hearing.
✔️ Karnataka HC – E-Sports Company v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 23289 OF 2025 (T-RES)]
